Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. This was an action brought by John Fitzgerald, a citizen of Nebraska, in the District Court of Lancaster County, in that ■State, against the Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company, a corporation created under the laws of Iowa.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. This was an action brought by John Fitzgerald, a citizen of Nebraska, in the District Court of Lancaster County, in that ■State, against the Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction Company, a corporation created under the laws of Iowa. The petition was filed December 22, 1888, and summons .issued, which-was served on the 2éth of December, by the delivery of a copy to S. H. Mallory, described in the return as “ the president and managing agent ” of the defendant company. Under Title IY of the Code of Civil Procedure of…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice
Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
It is contended that the Circuit Court should have refused to proceed with the action if it appeared to its satisfaction that the service upon the defendant was obtained by means of a fraudulent device and trick; and that this question was presented by the plea to the jurisdiction, the motion for a non-suit, the motion to dismiss, and a -request, which was refused, for an instruction to the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, if they found from the evidence that the service was fraudulently procured and that the defendant -…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. MarburySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Ex Parte SchollenbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- New England Mutual Life Insurance v. WoodworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Pew v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by172 opinions
- Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. Francisco ToscaninoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
167 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.